Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can someone explain this story

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sir123
    Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭Sir123


    mtoutlemonde wrote: »
    If anything it was the younger teachers joining TUI in their droves. Now there was a reason, if applying for a CID (Contract of Indefinite Duration), TUI could get it in two years as opposed to four with ASTI. Just to add, I wonder did any ASTI teachers get their CIDs after two years? I don't think I heard of any legal action.

    Yes they did after those hooligans on the hooligan bus voted to overturn our campaign at special convention. CIDs were then backdated as we had sold ourselves out to government. Also many older teachers joined TUI, with whole schools even leaving, a mixture of old, middle age and young staff. I hate being ageist here in my comment.


  • Options
    #33
    Sir123
    Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭Sir123


    salonfire wrote: »
    After the new entrants pay was cut and the IMF were running the country, there was little noise from the unions as compared to now.

    Once the economy picked up and the number of new entrants grows, the higher up the agenda it becomes.


    Exact same thing is happening today with the new pension scheme. It is terrible value to those post 2013. But because it is not impacting anyone now, there is little action taken on it.

    That will be kept quiet for now to allow pushes for more general pay increases. Down the line, once more of the post 2013 recruits retire will it become a big issue just like lower starting salaries are now.

    You are so right! The pension is such a big problem and rates of superannuation paid by the teacher post 2013 is still the same as those pre 2013, so unfair. Although ASC is slightly lower, us post 2013 teachers shouldn't even be paying it imo.

    I think the pension issue needs to be highlighted more. Equal pay first I think is on the agenda by unions etc and then we should be working from there. Although, doing both simultaneously would bring light to the issue more rapidly than currently being done. It's a double whammy for some of us.


  • Options
    #34
    mtoutlemonde
    Registered Users Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭mtoutlemonde


    Sir123 wrote: »
    Yes they did after those hooligans on the hooligan bus voted to overturn our campaign at special convention. CIDs were then backdated as we had sold ourselves out to government. Also many older teachers joined TUI, with whole schools even leaving, a mixture of old, middle age and young staff. I hate being ageist here in my comment.

    Yes and I think of that crowd everyday I have to attend JCT training days and SLARs. To think one of those individuals still thinks they have a chance at becoming VP is ludicrous.

    Yes it wasn't only the young that left but had to answer the point that the old teachers sold out the younger ones. Have heard of teachers changing close to retirement.

    The school I was working in that year was almost all TUI with management and young teachers on second RPT contracts changing from ASTI to TUI.


  • Options
    #35
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    salonfire wrote: »
    After the new entrants pay was cut and the IMF were running the country, there was little noise from the unions as compared to now.

    Once the economy picked up and the number of new entrants grows, the higher up the agenda it becomes.


    Exact same thing is happening today with the new pension scheme. It is terrible value to those post 2013. But because it is not impacting anyone now, there is little action taken on it.

    That will be kept quiet for now to allow pushes for more general pay increases. Down the line, once more of the post 2013 recruits retire will it become a big issue just like lower starting salaries are now.

    So what do you recommend teachers do. Would you support an industrial action maybe?


  • Options
    #36
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Ok. That's fair enough. I was wrong on that. My friend had told me years ago that she was getting fecked over because she was forced to go on strike and she got nothing but the rest of them did.

    What did they get that she didn't get exactly?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Hard to deal with facts I suppose.




    Actually, to modify my story above, a 22 year old with just an undergraduate degree would have been getting a better per-contact-hour rate than we would have been getting for lecturing. And I thought we we getting decent enough money. Mad when you think about it.


    I still don't think it's fair that the new entrants get relatively less. But I blame the Unions and existing old teachers for going along with that. I gather from what I read that two lower starting increments were introduced and the allowances were removed. Maybe they could have agreed for only one lower increment to be introduced and for all teachers to be shifted down one increment and the allowances to remain. I'm sure that would have saved even more. So maybe they new increment would only have had to be a small decrease for the new starters.

    Introduced on the floor of the Dáil, keep up Donald. This was covered in yesterday's class.


  • Options
    #38
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Ok. That's fair enough. I was wrong on that. My friend had told me years ago that she was getting fecked over because she was forced to go on strike and she got nothing but the rest of them did.

    Workers on strike do not get paid by their employer.

    In the PS, records are kept, and your pension will be reduced by that day(s) of lost service.


  • Options
    #39
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    If the issue of new entrants to teaching on 10% less pay is to be dealt with, how come all the other PS who have started on 10% less aren't been mentioned?


  • Options
    #40
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    Introduced on the floor of the Dáil, keep up Donald. This was covered in yesterday's class.




    Well you are very naive if you think these things aren't floated before being raised. There is life outside the nice bubble of 33 22-hour working weeks ;) . There was a reason why the then teachers kicked off and went on strike in 2009. Unions met with government/public sector management and hey-presto, it turned out that existing staff were protected at the expense of incoming staff. And there were no more strikes on that matter......... Happy to threaten strikes later on though when changes were proposed to the Junior Cert and the old teachers wanted to use that to try to get a few more quid for themselves!


  • Options
    #41
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Geuze wrote: »
    Workers on strike do not get paid by their employer.

    In the PS, records are kept, and your pension will be reduced by that day(s) of lost service.




    I had thought that it was not unusual for those lost days to be returned as part of a deal if a deal is reached. But apparently that has never happened!






    And that ignores the fact that they still do get partially paid. I pointed out above that this is over 50%.



    I'll break down my work :D. One ASTI document I saw say that secondary teachers work 167 days a year. Another said that when on strike they are deducted 1/30th of their monthly wage i.e. 1/360th of a year.



    Given that the argument is given (when it comes to questions about correcting exams etc.) that teachers are not on holiday during the summer - but that the money they earn is just paid over 12 months - and that that is the reason why they can get paid extra to work by their employer during what would be normal business time in any other profession. Then I think that it is fair that if you don't do 1/167th of your work, then you miss out on 1/167th of your salary!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Geuze wrote: »
    If the issue of new entrants to teaching on 10% less pay is to be dealt with, how come all the other PS who have started on 10% less aren't been mentioned?


    Busy working. I'd say most of the rest of them don't get a few weeks off for the Easter holidays.


  • Options
    #43
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Well you are very naive if you think these things aren't floated before being raised. There is life outside the nice bubble of 33 22-hour working weeks ;) . There was a reason why the then teachers kicked off and went on strike in 2009. Unions met with government/public sector management and hey-presto, it turned out that existing staff were protected at the expense of incoming staff. And there were no more strikes on that matter......... Happy to threaten strikes later on though when changes were proposed to the Junior Cert and the old teachers wanted to use that to try to get a few more quid for themselves!

    How did older teachers get a few more quid from themselves out of the changes to the Junior Cert?


  • Options
    #44
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Geuze wrote: »
    If the issue of new entrants to teaching on 10% less pay is to be dealt with, how come all the other PS who have started on 10% less aren't been mentioned?

    What, like the nurses, firefighters and the Gardai?


  • Options
    #45
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    How did older teachers get a few more quid from themselves out of the changes to the Junior Cert?




    I didn't say that they did or didn't. All I know is that teachers threatened strike at the time.....whereas they didn't when the soon-to-be new entrants were to get shafted. They only kicked up when they thought they would be cut themselves, but once it was burdened onto new people, not a single $%#^ was given.


    It is safe to assume that if there was a majority of people in favour of strike over JC reform, that older teachers were obviously also in favour of it!


  • Options
    #46
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I didn't say that they did or didn't. All I know is that teachers threatened strike at the time.....whereas they didn't when the soon-to-be new entrants were to get shafted. They only kicked up when they thought they would be cut themselves, but once it was burdened onto new people, not a single $%#^ was given.


    It is safe to assume that if there was a majority of people in favour of strike over JC reform, that older teachers were obviously also in favour of it!

    Is that the new entrants bill which was introduced by the Dáil ?

    Would you have supported a teachers strike back then?

    I'm a bit confused as on the one hand you say the senior teachers get a cushy number but on the other hand you maintain that post 2013 teachers were shafted. Is what you're saying that teachers now aren't being paid enough?

    Would you support a teachers strike now?


  • Options
    #47
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    Is that the new entrants bill which was introduced by the Dáil ?

    Would you have supported a teachers strike back then?
    No. But they did strike when they thought trouble was coming. No? Once it wasn't coming for them personally they didn't care. You can pretend all you like that if the Dail had introduced a bill introducing one new starting increment and pushing back all existing teachers by one step that there would not have been strikes. But we all know that it would have been. If "allowances" for being qualified were also removed for existing teachers, you can be sure that there'd have been mayhem.




    evolving_doors wrote: »
    I'm a bit confused as on the one hand you say the senior teachers get a cushy number but on the other hand you maintain that post 2013 teachers were shafted. Is what you're saying that teachers now aren't being paid enough?


    Teachers get well paid for what they do. But they should all get paid the same amount. (That includes this automatic increment business even though no new responsibilities are taken on).....in fact, I'd imagine that there is a big chunk of effort the first year your teach a course and after a year or two you should be able to do it in our sleep. Even though you will get paid more for teaching it the second and subsequent years. No? I mean if you've been teaching French for 20 years, you hardly have to spend hours revising how to count to 10 the night before you teach your first years.



    A small reduction for all in 2010 would have been fairer than allowing new entrants to take all the pain. The unions and old teachers should not have stood for it. But they did.


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    Would you support a teachers strike now?


    I wouldn't be that arsed. Let them strike if they want. Just be honest that the strikes are inherently selfish rather than based on any actual principle. The government should just deduct the full pro-rated salary impact rather than this 1/360 fudge.


  • Options
    #48
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No. But they did strike when they thought trouble was coming. No? Once it wasn't coming for them personally they didn't care. You can pretend all you like that if the Dail had introduced a bill introducing one new starting increment and pushing back all existing teachers by one step that there would not have been strikes. But we all know that it would have been. If "allowances" for being qualified were also removed for existing teachers, you can be sure that there'd have been mayhem.








    Teachers get well paid for what they do. But they should all get paid the same amount. (That includes this automatic increment business even though no new responsibilities are taken on).....in fact, I'd imagine that there is a big chunk of effort the first year your teach a course and after a year or two you should be able to do it in our sleep. Even though you will get paid more for teaching it the second and subsequent years. No? I mean if you've been teaching French for 20 years, you hardly have to spend hours revising how to count to 10 the night before you teach your first years.



    A small reduction for all in 2010 would have been fairer than allowing new entrants to take all the pain. The unions and old teachers should not have stood for it. But they did.






    I wouldn't be that arsed. Let them strike if they want. Just be honest that the strikes are inherently selfish rather than based on any actual principle. The government should just deduct the full pro-rated salary impact rather than this 1/360 fudge.

    Well I'll take your substantive point that the unions backed down to easily and they should have prolonged the industrial action, although I doubt you would have supported teachers at any stage (although maybe a little bit after hearing your friend's anecdote).

    So did you get your answer to the original post?


  • Options
    #49
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    Well I'll take your substantive point that the unions backed down to easily and they should have prolonged the industrial action, although I doubt you would have supported teachers at any stage (although maybe a little bit after hearing your friend's anecdote).

    So did you get your answer to the original post?




    Not fully. I'm still not sure why she started on 27k. Because from what I now understand, if she had taken enough college courses in what she wanted to teach, she would be on the "qualified" scale. Article might just be badly written though.





    Another question for you. I read something which defined a full week as 22 hours. Is this correct? If you teach less (or more) is it pro-rated? And does 22 hours mean 22 contact hours? So, for example, I think in my school we used to have 40 minute classes. So a teacher would have needed to teach 33 classes a week for their full rota?


  • Options
    #50
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Actually, just had a look at something there. When the sums were being done earlier, it was suggested that there was allowance lost for HDip and degree.

    Just looking at this here https://www.asti.ie/pay-and-conditions/pay/salary-scales-and-qualification-allowances/salary-scale-for-teachers-appointed-after-january-2011/ it seems that the HDip allowance was paid til 31st Jan 2012.

    I'm reading that the ~5k allowance for having a degree was abolished starting 1st Jan 2011 and then the extra HDip bit from 31st Jan 2012. The payscales changed for 1st Jan 2011. The girl in the article says she qualified in 2012 but that if she had qualified one year earlier she would have had an extra 30k net income over her first 6 years.

    Would she not have had to qualify 2 years earlier to get the old big bump? If she had qualified in 2011, she still would have missed the allowance part for the degree. Am I reading that incorrectly?

    This is what that bit says. It's confusing as it seems to imply that there are people who entered between 1st Jan 2011 and 31st Jan 2012 who still get degree allowance. But then it says that all post 1 Jan 2011 are on the quoted payscale which includes the degree allowance.
    Qualification Allowances are not payable to those who entered teaching on or after 1 February 2012 apart from inclusion in the scale of the Honours Primary Degree Allowance from 1 January 2018
    For those who entered teaching between 1 January 2011 and 31 January 2012 and who are already in receipt of qualification allowances above that of Honours Primary Degree allowance level will continue to receive those allowances, as follows:


    Unless it means that allowances were paid til 31st Jan 2012 and if you were on a Masters or Phd one for that 13 month period, you still keep that.


  • Options
    #51
    Moody_mona
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭Moody_mona


    Donald Trump wrote: »


    Another question for you. I read something which defined a full week as 22 hours. Is this correct? If you teach less (or more) is it pro-rated? And does 22 hours mean 22 contact hours? So, for example, I think in my school we used to have 40 minute classes. So a teacher would have needed to teach 33 classes a week for their full rota?

    22 is contact class time. It's genuinely impossible to get by with that bare bones. In my experience the vast majority would put in at least an hour a day above that, be it following up discipline issues, photocopying or correcting. I accept not everyone does but that's not really the point.

    Then there is S&S, which is paid technically I suppose in that it's worked into our payscale. If you were lucky enough to be in a position to opt out of this, then you need to take a paycut for the privilege. That averages out at slightly over an our a week of before or during school supervision, and substituting for teachers absent due to illness etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Moody_mona wrote: »
    22 is contact class time. It's genuinely impossible to get by with that bare bones. In my experience the vast majority would put in at least an hour a day above that, be it following up discipline issues, photocopying or correcting. I accept not everyone does but that's not really the point.

    Then there is S&S, which is paid technically I suppose in that it's worked into our payscale. If you were lucky enough to be in a position to opt out of this, then you need to take a paycut for the privilege. That averages out at slightly over an our a week of before or during school supervision, and substituting for teachers absent due to illness etc.




    Not sure what S&S is. Supervision and S..omething?


    I'm not giving out about the hours per week. I was just wondering how many classes it meant. I accept, and would have assumed, that more time is needed for preparation etc. But, to be honest, in most salaried professional "career" jobs, people work a fair bit outside of their contracted hours.


  • Options
    #53
    Moody_mona
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭Moody_mona


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Not sure what S&S is. Supervision and S..omething?


    I'm not giving out about the hours per week. I was just wondering how many classes it meant. I accept, and would have assumed, that more time is needed for preparation etc. But, to be honest, in most salaried professional "career" jobs, people work a fair bit outside of their contracted hours.

    Absolutely that's why I said it wasn't really the point 👠sorry I used the two s words in that second paragraph, Supervision and Substition. Classes are either 40 minutes or 60 minutes now, so 33 classes or 22 classes respectively. Plus S&s.


  • Options
    #54
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Not fully. I'm still not sure why she started on 27k. Because from what I now understand, if she had taken enough college courses in what she wanted to teach, she would be on the "qualified" scale. Article might just be badly written though.





    Another question for you. I read something which defined a full week as 22 hours. Is this correct? If you teach less (or more) is it pro-rated? And does 22 hours mean 22 contact hours? So, for example, I think in my school we used to have 40 minute classes. So a teacher would have needed to teach 33 classes a week for their full rota?

    Ya let's just say the article didn't specify fully what her situation was. She was technically qualified at the right time But took another year to start a masters full time, which was not necessary for her job... but education and all that. Then there's the 8 hours vs someone else stuff...

    But as you can see that's part of the problem, when you apply for teaching work its a bag of chaos you're jumping into with no certainty. Whereas when you apply to be an engineer im sure its somewhat more straightforward.

    Yes 22 is just contact. Thou don't just swan in and rehash last year's lesson plans. Thou have to plan for the audience in front of you.


  • Options
    #55
    salonfire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    evolving_doors wrote: »
    So what do you recommend teachers do. Would you support an industrial action maybe?

    Depends on what they were looking for.

    I always thought that the public sector employees should have more flexibility in how their pensions are managed. That I would support. To me, it seems they pay a lot towards their pension while in the prime of life. And yes, the pension is excellent.

    We all hope to have a long and healthy retirement. But many don't get that luxury. What good is an income of €30000 if you are sitting by the fire using an oxygen pump to breathe.

    For me, I like being able to ramp up and down pension contributions as I please. The pension may not be as good, but still perfectly adequate for old age lifestyle. You'd be surprised how compound returns on investments can grow considering employer contributions and the fact that there is tax relief.

    I would also support a cost of living allowance for the public sector working in cities.

    But no way should there be run away increases in salaries. Teachers are extremely competitively paid compared to others in non managerial positions.


  • Options
    #56
    evolving_doors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭evolving_doors


    salonfire wrote: »
    Depends on what they were looking for.

    I always thought that the public sector employees should have more flexibility in how their pensions are managed. That I would support. To me, it seems they pay a lot towards their pension while in the prime of life. And yes, the pension is excellent.

    We all hope to have a long and healthy retirement. But many don't get that luxury. What good is an income of €30000 if you are sitting by the fire using an oxygen pump to breathe.

    For me, I like being able to ramp up and down pension contributions as I please. The pension may not be as good, but still perfectly adequate for old age lifestyle. You'd be surprised how compound returns on investments can grow considering employer contributions and the fact that there is tax relief.

    I would also support a cost of living allowance for the public sector working in cities.

    But no way should there be run away increases in salaries. Teachers are extremely competitively paid compared to others in non managerial positions.

    Says who? and compared to what profession?

    But anyway,I agree the new public sector pension is indeed crap. Have a look at this report on the new pension scheme
    https://paycommission.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/INTO-TUI-pensions-1-Single-Scheme.pdf
    On our assumptions, and based on this example, a public servant will contribute 88% - 95% of
    the cost of the public service pension received
    Pg. 8

    and these figures are assuming you're, entering college at 17/18, Qualifying to be a teacher at 23 and working a full-time position from Day1 :pac::pac::pac::pac:. So given how rare that is, it's not exactly all that people make it out to be in terms of cost to the exchequer.

    It will be interesting to see if the compulsory pension scheme ever comes along, it might open it up for public sector workers to administer their own fund, maybe pay off the mortgage instead so that you can better afford to send the kids to college while you're still working.


  • Options
    #57
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,130 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    I did almost 30 years and have a pension of 16k.
    That's real pension figures.


  • Options
    #58
    byhookorbycrook
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,481 Mod ✭✭✭✭byhookorbycrook


    "Your friend" is wrong, simple enough really.


  • Options
    #59
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    spurious wrote: »
    I did almost 30 years and have a pension of 16k.
    That's real pension figures.


    My father did 38-39 years approx.

    Pension = 35k approx

    He retired on 71-72k approx.


  • Options
    #60
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,130 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Geuze wrote: »
    My father did 38-39 years approx.

    Pension = 35k approx

    He retired on 71-72k approx.

    Yes, if you do the full years and have a post the pension is decent enough. The trouble is, most today do not have the full service as they don't get a 'proper' job for years. Plus they have reworked how they calculate the pension.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    spurious wrote: »
    Yes, if you do the full years and have a post the pension is decent enough. The trouble is, most today do not have the full service as they don't get a 'proper' job for years. Plus they have reworked how they calculate the pension.




    How many full years did you work yourself? I am interested to know whether your situation would be common or an outlier. I would have thought that 30 years ago, the situation of teachers temping/subbing for years didn't really happen like it does now.


    What age did you retire at too? That might have affected your pension. A previous job I had had both a defined contribution and a defined benefit component. From what I can remember, the way it was designed was that you would get a small enough percentage of your final salary (based on number of years worked) annually after retirement; plus your own contributed lump sum could be withdrawn (or used to buy an annuity) on retirement. I can't remember the exact figure but I think there was a 3% reduction on the defined benefit component for each you you retired early.

    I'm not questioning the veracity of your figures, just wondering how common it might be.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement